MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999514497 · doi:10.5539/jel.v9n1p229

Attitudes of Secondary School Students in Jordan Toward Contemporary Educational Concepts

2020· article· en· W2999514497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nibal AbdelKarim Mousa Malkawi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityPsychologyDemocracyRationalityDegree (music)Mathematics educationSample (material)Social psychologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify the degree of awareness of secondary school students in public schools in Jordan of modern educational concepts and the extent of their representation. The sample of the study consisted of 920 male and female students, a questionnaire consisted of 54 items was distributed among them, it was consisted of six domains, according to independent variables which are: gender, specialization, region, where the dependent variable was the degree of awareness of secondary school students of modern educational concepts. The results showed that the relative importance of the domains in the total score was 72.14% when the domains obtained the following: the concept of integrated personality (73.36%), education for life and work (70.10%), responsibility (74.35%), continuous education (72.42%), rationality and critical thinking (72.38%), and the concept of democracy in the field of education (70.30%), the effect of the gender variable in favor of males has been shown in the total degree and on all fields of study, as well as the scientific specialization in all areas and the total degree, differences have appeared in favor of urban students in the total degree and for the benefit of rural students in the areas: building an integrated personality, and take responsibility and democratic education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207